CISF Member Without Government Housing At IGI Airport To Get Full HRA As Delhi HC Orders Release Of Withheld 5%

In brief

The question

1. Whether a CISF member who was not provided Government accommodation is entitled to full HRA, notwithstanding the respondents’ reduction of the payable amount by 5%.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA from 21 March 2023 to 1 January 2026.

It also directed

It directed the respondents to pay the balance HRA within three months; if payment was delayed beyond that period, simple interest at 6% per annum would accrue until payment.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The petitioner, a CISF member posted at IGI Airport, New Delhi, was not provided Government accommodation from 21 March 2023 to 1 January 2026.

p. 1, 3

During that period, he received 25% HRA and sought the remaining 5%, claiming entitlement to full HRA in lieu of accommodation.

p. 1, 3

The respondents did not dispute either the absence of accommodation or the amount paid.

p. 1, 3

The petitioner relied on earlier Division Bench decisions interpreting Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001.

p. 2, 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether a CISF member who was not provided Government accommodation is entitled to full HRA, notwithstanding the respondents’ reduction of the payable amount by 5%.

p. 1, 3

ii.2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the balance HRA for the period from 21 March 2023 to 1 January 2026.

p. 3

03Law Applied

Rule 61 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 provides for accommodation for members of the Force and HRA in lieu of accommodation where it is unavailable.

p. 4, 7

In Inspector/Exe. Jaspal Singh Mann v. Union of India & Ors., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 649, the Delhi High Court held that HRA is a component of salary and a compensatory allowance, not a concession; a member who is not allotted accommodation due to shortage or seniority cannot therefore be denied HRA in lieu of it.

p. 4, 7

Rule 61 must be read so that accommodation-allocation limits do not extinguish HRA entitlement, as a contrary interpretation would be discriminatory and inconsistent with Article 14.

p. 4, 7

The Court noted that this approach had been followed in Shaikh Abdul Khalik, Brijesh Kumar, and Anand Kumar, and that the relevant rulings in Jaspal Singh Mann and Brijesh Kumar had been upheld by the Supreme Court.

p. 8

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s case fell within the principle in Jaspal Singh Mann: he had not received Government accommodation during the relevant period, and the respondents did not dispute that only 25% HRA had been paid.

p. 3, 4

The Court considered the prior Division Bench rulings, which establish that a member’s entitlement to HRA cannot depend on the station of posting or on accommodation-allocation limits.

p. 8, 9

Applying those rulings, it held that the 5% reduction was untenable and that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA for the claimed period.

p. 8, 9

05Holding

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to full HRA from 21 March 2023 to 1 January 2026.

p. 9

It directed the respondents to pay the balance HRA within three months; if payment was delayed beyond that period, simple interest at 6% per annum would accrue until payment.

p. 9

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

p. 9

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF